Division Marketing: Turn Arguments Into Money

[Lex DeVille]

Disclaimer: What you are about to read describes an approach to marketing that involves manipulation, misdirection, and argumentation. It is not the only approach to marketing, but it is an approach that is being used a lot today so it is worth becoming aware of at the very least.

For a long time, I've been aggressive with arguments. Most of the time I do not argue out of spite or anger, but because I know that every coin has two sides. Each side represents a polarization of beliefs and perspectives. If everyone held the same beliefs and perspectives, then any perspective would not require "advocacy."

Advocacy is interesting because the purpose would seem to be to persuade others from one perspective to another. But something I've noticed about online advocates is that their messaging usually isn't designed for persuasion. Usually, it is more of a rant with personal attacks against an invisible "they" while quietly shouting, "WE must take a stand!" In other words, the argument is engineered to be liked by those who already agree.

The "we" is the purpose of this post. Not the "we" that the advocates are describing, but the "we" or "they" whom the advocates would stand against. The people on the other side of the coin (and the spectators standing off to the side) who do not yet have a voice in the fight. Those are the people division marketing is targeted at.

Here is an example from my own YouTube channel..


You're looking for the spike around May 3, 2019. The biggest spike my channel ever saw by far. On that day, someone on Upwork was bashing my approach to freelancing and the thread had grown large enough that someone else told me about it. So I went to Upwork's forum and capitalized on the opportunity. I joined the one-sided argument to defend myself. But more importantly, I joined the argument because freelancers were my target audience, and I knew a lot of them would disagree with my opponent if I argued against their points with reason.

So I joined the argument, and let the others attack me personally. Meanwhile, I focused on deconstructing their points and invalidating their statements because it would allow viewers to say, "hey, this guy isn't the monster they've made him out to be, he's quite reasonable."

But I didn't intend to persuade all viewers, and I didn't care that much about defending myself either. The goal was to find the right opportunity to mention my YouTube channel, and when I found that opportunity, all I had to do was say something like, if you don't believe me, just search my name out on YouTube and you will see. It's kind of a Kansas City Shuffle (like the song).

When the Suits look left, they fall right
Into the Kansas City Shuffle

The attackers obviously weren't going to my channel and I didn't care if they did anyway. But other people would because they found my arguments reasonable or because they already agreed with my perspective. I didn't even have to link to the channel or say the name. It was subtle, a hidden call-to-action that worked really well.

Advocates may not realize this, but when advocacy is engineered for likes by people who already agree, then it isn't advocacy, it's marketing. So if you are willing to spend the time to craft a better argument in favor of another perspective, then you can use the division as the entry point for a sales funnel fueled by polarization.

Subtlety is key.

Method Summarized

1. An argument is presented by someone.
2. Each position will draw attention from those who already agree.
3. A third-party can be won over by the most reasonable position.
4. So argue intelligently while subtly directing viewers where you want them to go.
5. And remember, the longer an argument continues, the more people will see.

That last point is important because you may be tempted to shut down or withdraw from an argument as soon as you start to be personally attacked. Personal attacks reveal how weak the other position is and can make you think, this is stupid, I'm out. But if you ignore the personal attacks and stay focused on invalidating the other side's points with reason, then viewers will spend more time reading your posts and being moved to agree, or at least, being moved to learn more about you.

Once those viewers make their way back to the place you want them to go, then you have them. You've moved them away from the argument. Only one perspective is presented in this new location. For instance, on my YouTube channel, I only share things from my perspective, and my videos funnel people to places where they can buy things from me.

The approach targets a division, so I call this division marketing.

Just keep in mind you have to present solid arguments (usually). Personal attacks work if you only care about drawing attention from those who already agree with you, but it is more useful to win the third-party too.

Anyway, the next time you encounter a perspective you strongly disagree with, consider who else is watching. Maybe that argument isn't worth your time, but maybe it is if you fancy yourself a puppet master pulling strings.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MTF]

I don't agree with you, you idiot!*

Jokes aside, this definitely requires a willingness to expose yourself to a lot of criticism and stress. So only certain people can benefit from it, and I guess only when they're very careful not to end up like much-hated mass media today (manipulating people to get advertising revenue, usually through publishing divisive content, and thus driving more and more people away to more objective sources of information).

* If you agree with me disagreeing with @Lex DeVille, check out my Ultimate Course on Disagreeing With People for Fun and Profit.

 

[Lex DeVille]

I don't agree with you, you idiot!*

Jokes aside, this definitely requires a willingness to expose yourself to a lot of criticism and stress. So only certain people can benefit from it, and I guess only when they're very careful not to end up like much-hated mass media today (manipulating people to get advertising revenue, usually through publishing divisive content, and thus driving more and more people away to more objective sources of information).

* If you agree with me disagreeing with @Lex DeVille, check out my Ultimate Course on Disagreeing With People for Fun and Profit.

Good points, although being exposed to stress doesn't mean you have to feel stressed. In social media arguments it seems like all parties are stressed, probably from taking jabs personally.

I think if you approach it as, "I'm not arguing, I'm marketing," then there's no reason to feel stressed. You don't have to hate the other side and you can even be open to their perspective because the goal isn't to "win" by defeating the other person.

Ultimately, the outcome of the disagreement doesn't matter. All that matters is that the right people find their way back to you.

 

[Lex DeVille]

Probably one of the best uses for this would be for people trying to make a name for themselves. So those who are at an early stage of marketing. Specifically, personal brands when you can argue effectively against a bigger influencer who already has the ability to attract attention. Their rants draw attention, and then you just piggyback off of it. No need to start your own rants because nobody will see them anyway.

Something similar happens quite often across YouTube channels. I've noticed that channels with similar audience bases will argue back and forth. One titles their video, "X Lies to Viewers!" and the other comes back with, "My Response to Y's Accusations!" This is similar to what I described above, though it takes place in a slightly different context. In the end, both sides enjoy a nice boost in subscribers despite the drama.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Einfamilienhaus]

So, how can I bring bigger influencers to make a public statement about/against me, without being "provocative" in the first place?

 

[Lex DeVille]

So, how can I bring bigger influencers to make a public statement about/against me, without being "provocative" in the first place?

You don't need them to make a statement about you. It just needs to be about a polarizing topic that will draw in your target audience. Influencers already make rants on their own all the time.

For example, a few days ago an influencer posted a rant about people who do not have mental illness making jokes about mental illness. She claimed their language is offensive to all people with a mental illness, and her credibility was that she has a mental illness. Her post was getting a lot of likes, but then an individual opposed her perspective with a statement that started off something like:

I respectfully disagree with most of this post.

That created strong polarization in the opposite direction. The individual then broke down the rant, pointing out inconsistencies and assumptions that the original poster had made. For instance, they noted that they too had a diagnosed mental illness, and they did not feel offended by the jokes or language the original poster had described, therefore, the point that the jokes were offensive to all people with mental illness was invalidated.

The poster's response was longer and more thorough than the original post and it started getting likes. The original poster soon fired back a response, but her response wasn't as composed. It was full of personal attacks hinting at ideas like "toxic masculinity" and "male chauvinism" but without saying those words directly. The OP claimed that the responder just wanted to assert dominance and prove her wrong. Most of these ideas had nothing to do with the topic or with the responder. They were nonsense.

The responder maintained composure and did not respond by attacking the OP, but again deconstructed the arguments one at a time, building more and more likes. At one point he mentioned an inconsistency in the OP's personal attacks that could be proven by taking a quick look at his profile (this was on a social media site). Then his follower count started increasing. What was interesting was that his follower base would include the kind of people who would make offhand jokes about mental illness, so arguing against the OP placed him in the limelight in front of the exact right people.

So you don't need the influencer to argue against you. It doesn't matter if they have never even heard of you. It only matters that the people who would be against their position are the right people for your products and services and that you are willing to take a stand for those people.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Lex, stop teaching people my jam.
Shhhh.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Ondkeso]

I feel like many political arguments have this purpose. They know that they will not convince their opponent of anything, the objective is therefore to influence the listeners.

Very cool to think of this as a marketing tool, great read.

 

[Kid]

And remember, the longer an argument continues, the more people will see.

This is a good explanation for many arguments.
It's good to know that and be aware of it,
especially when one side is honest and the other isn't and is just pulling your leg.

If half your customers want hot tea and half your customers want cold tea, the worst thing you can do is to try to make them all happy by serving room temperature tea.

That's good description.
There are also other variants describing it like:
"Compromise is when two parties leave dissatisfied"
and less related :"No place for fence sitters"

 

[Einfamilienhaus]

Thank you for your response @Lex DeVille !

I understood that you should take advantage out of popularizing discussions. The question is now:

How can I create strong arguments or communicate my point of view in a proper way?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lex DeVille]

Thank you for your response @Lex DeVille !

I understood that you should take advantage out of popularizing discussions. The question is now:

How can I create strong arguments or communicate my point of view in a proper way?

At the most basic level, you only need to stay focused on debating the opposition's points. Avoid personal attacks because the goal is to demonstrate: intelligence, logic, and reasoning. A strong argument is a valid argument which means none of your premises are false, and all premises support the conclusion. When a premise can be disproven, then it creates an invalid argument.

Premise 1: Making jokes about mental illness is wrong.
Premise 2: Mental illness jokes are offensive to all people with mental illness.
Conclusion: Mental illness jokes must be stopped!

Is this a valid argument? If any of the premises are false, then the answer is no.

Premise 1: Making jokes about mental illness is wrong.

This can't exactly be disproven, but it can be questioned. According to whom is this wrong? What gives them the power to determine that this is wrong? Based upon what authority? By asking these questions, the strength of the point is eroded.

Premise 2: Mental illness jokes are offensive to all people with mental illness.

If I am a person with mental illness and I counter that mental illness jokes are not offensive to me, then not "all" people with mental illness find these jokes offensive. Therefore, this premise is false, and the argument is invalid.

Conclusion: We must stop mental illness jokes!

If not all people with mental illness find mental illness jokes offensive, then must we stop them? Maybe they do not need to be stopped since some people are not offended and may even enjoy them.

A sound argument is an argument where all premises are true and the argument is valid.

Premise 1: Some people with mental illness enjoy mental illness jokes.
Premise 2: Mental illness jokes make some people laugh.
Conclusion: Mental illness jokes can be funny even for those with mental illness.
Conclusion 2: Mental illness jokes are not offensive to everyone with mental illness.
Conclusion 3: Mental illness jokes do not necessarily need to be stopped.

This counter-argument avoids universal quantifiers (words like "all," "always," "never") which can easily be disproven, and focuses on points that can be more easily supported (especially if you are a person with mental illness and you find mental illness jokes funny). In this case, premises one and two can be proven through your own personal perspective, so even without additional evidence, the conclusions are supported and the argument is valid.

Personal Attacks as a counter-argument would look like:

Premise 1: You're F*cking stupid for thinking everyone is offended by mental illness jokes.
Premise 2: You are just a snowflake with blue armpit hair.
Conclusion: Go F*ck yourself.

As true as these premises may be, they develop into a weak argument by focusing on the person rather than on their points. The conclusion isn't actually a conclusion, just a statement. However, some people will agree with you, but any third-parties will think you are a fool.


Your main goal when you counter-argue is to focus on proving the premises of your opposition false, and ensuring that your own premises are true.

Quick Tips
- Avoid using the word "you" as much as possible
- Avoid emotionally-charged language (F*cking, insane, snowflake etc.)
- Avoid universal quantifiers ("all," "always," "never," "none," "zero evidence of that")
- State that you are open to their perspective
- State that you are open to changing your perspective if you encounter better reasoning than your own
- State that you do not hate them and you would even shake hands and buy them a drink when the debate is over

Although you want to focus on creating valid arguments and avoid emotionally-charged language, you can influence the emotions of all parties by demonstrating through your actions and words that you are a polite and reasonable person (which usually creates a stark contrast when compared against the personal attacks and insults of the opposition).

Books on informal logic and debate may also be helpful.

Lastly, remember that you don't have to be the best arguer. You don't even have to win. You have to prove that you are a polite and reasonable person who is open to other perspectives (even if you are not). Also, it is helpful to know when you've said enough and when it is time to bow out. Usually, I don't wait for an argument to conclude before exiting. Like a good television series, I keep the episodes going and try to end on a high point when the most people are likely to be in agreement with me.

The longer you argue the more your arguments are seen, but also the more chances to make yourself look like a complete fool and lose the support of all parties!